or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 87  

post #1291 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


It actually seems like a more fair/balanced system.. A lot of jobs these days don't necessarily pay based on how hard the job is. To be quite frank a lot of the time it goes the opposite way and the easier the job the more you get paid. I'll probably catch some flack for this but I call it as I see it.

In a way yes, in another way I can see why people with huge student loans would like to get their studies worth. Having that said, it's not like doctors have to drive old cars and can barely afford food. Also, most lawyers are semi-businessmen with their own practices and such, and get paid well. So, there IS money to be earned, however, most doctors and lawyers (and other little more prestigeous jobs), that don't have their own practices, don't actually make the money their lengthy education would suggest. Also, most people without formal university education can still get well paid jobs, and most jobs that are "normal" (at factories, restaurants, clerks, etc.) are decent paid ones.

 

I just had to check the statistics again, and I was actually a (little) bit off in my previous post (going to have to edit it). IT people make more money than other people straight out of university, and after some years it's really a mixed bag - the difference between a developer and a doctor is about $5000-$10000 a year depending on where in the country they are (people in bigger cities get more), though a senior programmer makes about the same as a "senior" doctor (both with 10+ experience). Blue collar jobs in general are not necessarily less paid than white collar ones.

 

All in all, it's probably a more balanced system than you have over there. The biggest differences I can see are actually pretty small (aside from a few non-representative anomalies). I rarely hear about people having to work double shifts or have more than one work place. Also, one thing to consider is that we have free university education so I think there is a little more relaxed view on university degrees as opposed to having a solid experience from a normal, blue collar trade.

 

For example, I'd probably get more money working in a warehouse working shifts than as a junior position as a developer. Fresh doctors make even less. However, those in warehouses won't get they wages raised while both doctors and IT people do get pretty big raises.

 

Edit: I forgot to add that the higher your wages are, the more you pay in taxes (percentage wise). For example, a cleaning lady would pay the normal income tax which is about 30%. A higher paid doctor would pay closer to 50% income tax. So really, the differences after taxes are even less. However, a well paid doctor, despite not making enormous money has no problems getting a loan to buy a house while a cleaning lady would probably not get a loan at all.


Edited by Coq de Combat - 9/28/12 at 2:48am
post #1292 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post

 

@MuppetFace

 

Today I received my first of 4 CD's, Letzte Tage-letzte Nächte by Popol Vul was the CD I received. The first couple of songs weren't really my style but when the third track, Oh wie weit ist der Weg hinauf, kicked in my interest also immediately kicked in. I'm on the second last track now and thus far I'm really enjoying this album. Thanks, this is exactly what the doctor ordered, a nice change of pace. I can hardly wait until the other 3 CD's arrive.

 

 

 

Happy birthday!

 

I'm glad you're enjoying your new music.

 

 

By the way, I also really suggest listening to the Aguirre soundtrack and also watching the film Aguirre: The Wrath of God by Herzog. It's one of the greatest films ever made. The choral parts of that soundtrack still haunt me. That and rafts with monkeys on them....


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/28/12 at 2:50am
post #1293 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post

 

Speaking of socialist countries and economic models, I've seen a lot of misinformation and assumptions from americans (in particular) about the Swedish model/Nordic model.

 

Out of personal interest: What are your opinions on it?

 

Usually people from the former Soviet Union don't regard Sweden as a socialist country. I think that Sweden is basically a capitalist country with a very strong government regulation and influence. The reason why I think this way is that socialism/communism in the USSR was perceived from the idealistic ultimate perspective. Karl Marx's influence and his radical ideas ( many of which I find false) gave soviet people very narrow and highly dogmatic view on socialism. While in reality things are not that straightforward. 

 

In Russia socialistic theory turned into a monster in the same fashion as religion of Islam has turned into a brutal force in the Middle East. What is my conclusion? The religious and Utopian socialistic ideas are not good building blocks for a society. 

 

Economical policy of a state should be free from ideologies and obsessions on existential level. 


Edited by mutabor - 9/28/12 at 3:49am
post #1294 of 21760
The question Is an octopus an animal? leads to a conversation on the meaning of the word "animal", with people chiming in from the fields of biology and linguistic semantics. It's a fun read.
post #1295 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

Usually people from the former Soviet Union don't regard Sweden as a socialist country. I think that Sweden is basically a capitalist country with a very strong government regulation and influence. The reason why I think this way is that socialism/communism in the USSR was perceived from the idealistic ultimate perspective. Karl Marx's influence and his radical ideas ( many of which I find false) gave soviet people very narrow and highly dogmatic view on socialism. While in reality things are not that straightforward. 

 

In Russia socialistic theory turned into a monster in the same fashion as religion of Islam has turned into a brutal force in the Middle East. What is my conclusion? The religious and Utopian socialistic ideas are not good building blocks for a society. 

 

Economical policy of a state should be free from ideologies and obsessions on existential level. 

That is kind of an interesting viewpoint on Sweden, since it's basically correct on many levels. Socialism, as far as I know it, should be about collective ownership through a government of some kind. However, the absolutely biggest ideology, and democratically voted through politics, is the idea of social democracy. Social democracy, while not socialism per definition, is still regarded pretty "close" to socialism, or by some people, a middleground between capitalism and socialism. However, the very reason that you are correct about Sweden not being socialist aside from the very fact that Sweden isn't socialistic, is that lately Swedish people has been voting more and more for right wing parties instead of left wing parties that support socialism, communism, syndicalism and so on (in fact, right now we have a majority for a coalition of several right wing parties, but I wouldn't want to call Sweden right:ish, because the reason they have won their elections have had a lot to do with the coalition counting their votes together, and the social democratic party having had a bad leader. However, the social democratic party is still the biggest single party here) - meaning that we're slowly shifting from the social democracy we were strongly connected with more towards capitalism and liberalism.

 

Why I call Sweden socialist though, is because it is widely regarded as such, and we still have a lot of ideas from socialism bound into our society.


Edited by Coq de Combat - 9/28/12 at 4:07am
post #1296 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardgedee View Post

The question Is an octopus an animal? leads to a conversation on the meaning of the word "animal", with people chiming in from the fields of biology and linguistic semantics. It's a fun read.

 

Freshman biology skillz, go!

 

Is it a fungi? No. Is it a plant? No. Is it bacteria or a protozoan? No. So by process of elimination, it has to be an animal.

 

Octopi are also very intelligent creatures. There was one living in the aqua-lab at UTMB who would escape from its aquarium, travel across to the next tank beside its own, climb in and eat the fish in it, then climb back to its own tank and replace the lid. For the longest time the scientists and students had no idea what was going on there when they noticed fish disappearing. They set up a camera overnight and actually caught the octopus on film doing it.

post #1297 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

Freshman biology skillz, go!

 

Is it a fungi? No. Is it a plant? No. Is it bacteria or a protozoan? No. So by process of elimination, it has to be an animal.

 

Octopi are also very intelligent creatures. There was one living in the aqua-lab at UTMB who would escape from its aquarium, travel across to the next tank beside its own, climb in and eat the fish in it, then climb back to its own tank and replace the lid. For the longest time the scientists and students had no idea what was going on there when they noticed fish disappearing. They set up a camera overnight and actually caught the octopus on film doing it.

Kind of reminds me of this:

 

 

Such a mysterious and tense clip, right? The music does it for me.

post #1298 of 21760
I read a recent interview with Jonathan Gold where he remarks to the effect that he's stopped eating freshly-prepared octopus because of the nature of octopus intelligence made him question the cruelty of it.
post #1299 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Freshman biology skillz, go!

Is it a fungi? No. Is it a plant? No. Is it bacteria or a protozoan? No. So by process of elimination, it has to be an animal.

Right, but as people chime into the thread there, they get into the social meanings of "animal" as distinguished from the purely taxonomic one. To paraphrase one of the commenters, telling your friends "I got stung by an animal" would get you funny looks, while "I got stung by an insect" wouldn't.
post #1300 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post

 

Speaking of socialist countries and economic models, I've seen a lot of misinformation and assumptions from americans (in particular) about the Swedish model/Nordic model.

 

Out of personal interest: What are your opinions on it?

 

I don't know enough of the specifics to comment specifically but I'll say that you need to walk a fine line between providing a safety net and providing incentive.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardgedee View Post

The question Is an octopus an animal? leads to a conversation on the meaning of the word "animal", with people chiming in from the fields of biology and linguistic semantics. It's a fun read.

 

The answer is...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Freshman biology skillz, go!

 

Is it a fungi? No. Is it a plant? No. Is it bacteria or a protozoan? No. So by process of elimination, it has to be an animal.

 

Octopi are also very intelligent creatures. There was one living in the aqua-lab at UTMB who would escape from its aquarium, travel across to the next tank beside its own, climb in and eat the fish in it, then climb back to its own tank and replace the lid. For the longest time the scientists and students had no idea what was going on there when they noticed fish disappearing. They set up a camera overnight and actually caught the octopus on film doing it.

 

This.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardgedee View Post

I read a recent interview with Jonathan Gold where he remarks to the effect that he's stopped eating freshly-prepared octopus because of the nature of octopus intelligence made him question the cruelty of it.

 

Shouldn't that depend on the type of octopus?  Are they all that smart?  It's a pretty large group after all.

 

A parrot is my pet but chicken is my dinner.  Even occasionally my pet parrot's dinner...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardgedee View Post

Right, but as people chime into the thread there, they get into the social meanings of "animal" as distinguished from the purely taxonomic one. To paraphrase one of the commenters, telling your friends "I got stung by an animal" would get you funny looks, while "I got stung by an insect" wouldn't.

 

Well those people are just wrong.  It's not normal language.  You can't go arbitrarily redefining terms with scientific meanings.

 

That's the same BS that gives us 'organic' food.  Apparently all the food we ate up until now didn't have any carbon in it.  Who knew?  Water now also seems to come with extra carbon too...

 

Also why would anyone get confused about an octopus of all things?  It's not like a sea sponge or something.  Lets assume so specialized knowledge.  20 Questions!  Animal, vegetable, or mineral?  Microscopic things are left out and fungus is close enough to vegetable.  An octopus is clearly alive and it sure as hell isn't plant-like so where else does it go?

 

/rant...

post #1301 of 21760
That post about the octopi starts talking about how some people don't think insects are animals. That hurts my head... what??
post #1302 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardgedee View Post


Right, but as people chime into the thread there, they get into the social meanings of "animal" as distinguished from the purely taxonomic one. To paraphrase one of the commenters, telling your friends "I got stung by an animal" would get you funny looks, while "I got stung by an insect" wouldn't.

 

Unless it was a porcupine.

 

But yeah, the colloquial definitions of things are kind of hazy. For instance what is considered "meat." I scratch my head when people say they don't eat meat, but that they eat fish. Isn't meat just tissue (flesh, muscle, organs)? Similar to confusion over whether an octopus is an animal, there seems to be a distinction made colloquially for fish.


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/28/12 at 5:10am
post #1303 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

Well those people are just wrong.  It's not normal language.  You can't go arbitrarily redefining terms with scientific meanings.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or, or some reason, ignorant of colloquial uses of the word "animal".

Of course an octopus is an animal, taxonomically. But words carry different meanings, and different implications, in conversational use. This is in addition to their strict and literal usage within the sciences. The "stung by an animal" anecdote was meant to illustrate this: Even though all insects are a part of animalia, conversationally we will segregate them.

So the fundamental question of "are octopuses animals?" can have multiple answers which are all fully and rigorously correct, and range from "yes" to "no".

If the question is, "Taxonomically, are octopuses animals?" the answer will be unambiguously "yes", and any other answer is wrong.

However, if the question is, "In American English regional idioms, are octopuses animals?" the answers may have to be more nuanced, circumstantial, and shading towards "maybe".
post #1304 of 21760
Thread Starter 

Also, I'm reminded of another distinction that bugs (speaking of insects..) me: calling the big bang a theory of the universe's coming into existence. That's actually not true. It explains why the universe started expanding, but it doesn't account for the pinpoint of condensed reality that was there at time zero. In this sense it doesn't rival creation theories, because it does not account for the something rather than nothing. Something was already there when it "banged."

post #1305 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Also, I'm reminded of another distinction that bugs (speaking of insects..) me: calling the big bang a theory of the universe's coming into existence. That's actually not true. It explains why the universe started expanding, but it doesn't account for the pinpoint of condensed reality that was there at time zero. In this sense it doesn't rival creation theories, because it does not account for the something rather than nothing. Something was already there when it "banged."

 

I think the distinction to make is that the big bang theory doesn't actually explain how space-time and therefore, energy came into existence. It only attempts to explain the observable pattern of entropy that exists currently. There really is no t-naught, unless you want to arbitrarily define that as the moment entropy began on this current course. I think layman books that attempt to explain the big bang theory take a lot of liberties when trying to explain the 'creation' of the universe.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2